2019年冠状病毒病大流行期间重症监护室的个人防护设备准备情况:亚太地区后续调查。

PubMed ID
发表日期 2021年Mar月

原始出处 澳大利亚危重病护理:澳大利亚危重病护理护士联合会官方期刊
Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses
作者 Gullapalli  Navya  Lim  Zheng Jie  Ramanathan  Kollengode  Bihari  Shailesh  Haji  Jumana  Shekar  Kiran  Wong  Wai Tat  Rajamani  Arvind  Subramaniam  Ashwin 

文献标题 2019年冠状病毒病大流行期间重症监护室的个人防护设备准备情况:亚太地区后续调查。
Personal protective equipment preparedness in intensive care units during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: An Asia-Pacific follow-up survey.

文献摘要 BACKGROUND

个人防护装备(PPE)-准备工作,定义为遵守指南、医护人员(HCW)培训、采购PPE库存和对疑似病例作出适当反应,对于预防HCW感染至关重要。

OBJECTIVE

至 进行后续调查 评估 PPE准备 六 在COVID-19大流行期间的亚太国家。

METHODS

前瞻性随访 横截面, 基于网络的调查是在2020年8月10日至2020年9月1日期间进行的,即初始调查结束后五个月 第一阶段 调查。这项调查被发送给了亚太六个国家(澳大利亚, 印度香港 新西兰、菲律宾和新加坡) 参加过 第一阶段。 主要结果指标是确定各阶段之间PPE准备的任何变化 1 和2。

FINDINGS

第2阶段有132个重症监护室的反应(57%)。与第一阶段相比,受访者报告了更多的基于PPE的实践,如电动空气净化呼吸器(40.2%比6.1%)、N95口罩(86.4%比53.7%)和双手套(87.9%比42.9%)。在第二阶段,报告的PPE库存(85.6%对51.9%)、违反PPE后的强制性淋浴政策(31.1%对6.9%)和医务人员的安全认知(60.6%对28.4%)显著提高。尽管报告的两个阶段的伙伴制采用率在统计上相似(42.4%对37.2%),据报道,第2阶段的穿脱训练有所减少(44.3%比60.2%)。两个阶段在气管插管、院内转运和安全废物处理等其他领域的HCW培训没有差异。

CONCLUSIONS

总体报告PPE准备情况有所改善 两者之间 调查 周期,尤其是在个人防护用品中 使用、个人防护用品清单和HCW安全观念。 然而,对六氯环己烷培训和低成本安全措施的执行率仍然很低,对个人防护用品违反管理政策的认识也不尽如人意。因此,关键的改进领域应集中在定期的HCW培训上, 实施低成本的伙伴系统,提高对PPE违规管理协议的认识。


BACKGROUND

Personal-protective equipment (PPE)-preparedness, defined as adherence to guidelines, healthcare worker (HCW) training, procuring PPE stocks and responding appropriately to suspected cases, is crucial to prevent HCW-infections.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a follow-up survey to assess changes in PPE-preparedness across six Asia-Pacific countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A prospective follow-up cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted between 10/08/2020 to 01/09/ 2020, five months after the initial Phase 1 survey. The survey was sent to the same 231 intensivists across the six Asia-Pacific countries (Australia, Hong Kong, India, New Zealand, Philippines, and Singapore) that participated in Phase 1. The main outcome measure was to identify any changes in PPE-preparedness between Phases 1 and 2.

FINDINGS

Phase 2 had responses from 132 ICUs (57%). Compared to Phase 1 respondents reported increased use of PPE-based practices such as powered air-purifying respirator (40.2% vs. 6.1%), N95-masks at all times (86.4% vs. 53.7%) and double-gloving (87.9% vs. 42.9%). The reported awareness of PPE stocks (85.6% vs. 51.9%), mandatory showering policies following PPE-breach (31.1% vs. 6.9%) and safety perception amongst HCWs (60.6% vs. 28.4%) improved significantly during Phase 2. Despite reported statistically similar adoption rate of the buddy system in both phases (42.4% vs. 37.2%), there was a reported reduction in donning/doffing training in Phase 2 (44.3% vs. 60.2%). There were no reported differences HCW training in other areas, such as tracheal intubation, intra-hospital transport and safe waste disposal, between the 2 phases.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall reported PPE-preparedness improved between the two survey periods, particularly in PPE use, PPE inventory and HCW perceptions of safety. However, the uptake of HCW training and implementation of low-cost safety measures continued to be low and the awareness of PPE breach management policies were suboptimal. Therefore, the key areas for improvement should focus on regular HCW training, implementing low-cost buddy-system and increasing awareness of PPE-breach management protocols.


获取全文 10.1016/j.aucc.2021.02.007